This is a Buddhist discussion forum, not a scientific forum, a skeptics forum or even a psi forum, so I'm not going to further engage you in a "tit for tat" discussion here.

I've said what I have to say, you've said what you have to say. I doubt and any further discussion is likely to lead to anything fruitful and is quite likely to only lead to hard feelings and ill-will between the participants, something I'm not really interested in being a part of. Unfortunately, I've probably generated enough ill-will as it is.

I think I shall take the Buddha's advice on this as friend LonesomeYogurt has so wisely reminded us, and spend my valuable time concentrating on my practice toward the end of suffering and not contribute any more to my own, yours or anyone elses.

In all sincerity I wish you much Metta.

Last edited by Sambojjhanga on Sat Nov 10, 2012 5:06 am, edited 1 time in total.

Sabba rasam dhammaraso jinatiThe flavor of the dhamma exceeds all other flavors

Last edited by Cittasanto on Sat Nov 10, 2012 10:35 am, edited 4 times in total.

This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!Blog,-Some Suttas Translated,Ajahn Chah."Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."

This is a Buddhist discussion forum, not a scientific forum, a skeptics forum or even a psi forum, so I'm not going to further engage you in a "tit for tat" discussion here.

you may wish you look at the section. and evidence is not a sceptics or scientific anomaly. but a tool is a tool.

I've said what I have to say, you've said what you have to say. I doubt and any further discussion is likely to lead to anything fruitful and is quite likely to only lead to hard feelings and ill-will between the participants, something I'm not really interested in being a part of. Unfortunately, I've probably generated enough ill-will as it is.

if you say so. you came in and leave in an interesting manner.

I think I shall take the Buddha's advice on this as friend LonesomeYogurt has so wisely reminded us, and spend my valuable time concentrating on my practice toward the end of suffering and not contribute any more to my own, yours or anyone elses.

you are not a cause of any suffering for me.

This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!Blog,-Some Suttas Translated,Ajahn Chah."Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."

beeblebrox wrote:Hi Cittasanto, why do you use so much exclamation points? What do they mean? I'm asking because I'm always unsure what you intended to do with those exactly. I kept on getting the impression that you're shouting, angry or frustrated... but that can't be right, is it?

It's kinda painful for me to read because I grew up with my father always shouting down everyone whenever he disagrees with something. I don't know if you remember, but when I posted a disagreement with you a while ago... you replied something with an exclamation point. I dropped it immediately afterwards, because of that perception.

After growing up with my father, I have absolutely no desire at all to have any kind of discussion with anyone who is shouting, or who feel like that they have to emphasize everything what they said. To me, it only signifies that the person is a jerk. Not worth having a conversation with. I know that this might not be your intention... but just letting you know how your use of exclamation points might come across to some people on here.

Nooo beeblebrox don't worry my brotherr no one is shouting at youu....it's easy to get misunderstood online than face to face ..ofcourse there are disagreements but it doesn't mean people are shouting at each other ..Cittasanto uses exclamation marks even when he's saying something nice at least in my own experience..i use that too when i am trying to emphasize something..but doesn't mean i am shouting at you..oki oki (i'm sorry to hear your father shouted at you that must be terrible..i hope you feel better and don't let anything get to you.. )

This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!Blog,-Some Suttas Translated,Ajahn Chah."Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."

This is a Buddhist discussion forum, not a scientific forum, a skeptics forum or even a psi forum, so I'm not going to further engage you in a "tit for tat" discussion here.

you may wish you look at the section. and evidence is not a sceptics or scientific anomaly. but a tool is a tool.

I've said what I have to say, you've said what you have to say. I doubt and any further discussion is likely to lead to anything fruitful and is quite likely to only lead to hard feelings and ill-will between the participants, something I'm not really interested in being a part of. Unfortunately, I've probably generated enough ill-will as it is.

if you say so. you came in and leave in an interesting manner.

I think I shall take the Buddha's advice on this as friend LonesomeYogurt has so wisely reminded us, and spend my valuable time concentrating on my practice toward the end of suffering and not contribute any more to my own, yours or anyone elses.

you are not a cause of any suffering for me.

Friend, I see you aren't willing to let this drop. I would not respond except you make the rather provocative statement that I have an interesting manner of coming and leaving. I've gone no where. I was simply trying to avoid conflict for conflict's sake as I see no possibility of fruitful discussion here with you. In a truly fruitful discussion, there is give and take and at least some common ground. I don't see that here. I see selective responding, ignoring of points and questions, and, quite frankly, someone who is very attached to arguing and being right. Nothing more.

You specifically ignored my wondering what your Gaelic quote meant, you did not respond to my URL's regarding meteorites and the Royal Academy nor my links to Randi or my suggestion that you check out the works of Dr. Rupert Sheldrake or Jaques Vallee. So why should I think you are serious in this discussion when you don't even do me the courtesy of specifically responding? Why should I assume that you are interested in anything but fostering YOUR POV?

I'm not trying to present evidence for a scientific inquiry. I simply stated that I have experienced things in my life which are not easily explained by the current scientific-materialist paradigm. I don't expect that to be "evidence". What I do expect, at least on a Buddhist forum is more open-mindedness. For example, I'd be a fool to expect such open-mindedness if I went and posted a similar thing on a physics forum. Why would I do that when what you say is absolutely true there? It would be equally foolish to discuss Jhana, enlightenment or a whole host of other things surrounding our practice on a physics forum, all of which are quite right to be discussed here. I don't see why that is even an issue.

You seem to have no problems with the idea of most any other Buddhist idea, but when the siddhis are discussed, you become very closed-mined. I honestly don't understand that. Jhana, the siddhis and indeed, full enlightenment are all self-reported phenomena, yet you seem to have no problems with the first and third (I'm assuming you have no problem with the third, correct me if I'm wrong?) but yet you totally deny the possibility of the second. NONE of which are appropriate to be discussed in a physics forum because none of them can be measured. Yet all are appropriate here.

It is also somewhat disingenuous for you to say that Buddhist meditation can fall under the umbrella of science. Yes, science can measure changes in brainwaves during meditation and can report changes. But what "results" that you speak of can science study regarding Buddhism? Precious little that I can see. Of do you mean to tell me that science can determine whether or not, for instance, that Daniel Ingram is or is not an Arahant? You know it cannot. Science also has nothing to say about Jhana, the siddhis, or anything else.

Metta

Sabba rasam dhammaraso jinatiThe flavor of the dhamma exceeds all other flavors

Sambojjhanga wrote:Friend, I see you aren't willing to let this drop. I would not respond except you make the rather provocative statement that I have an interesting manner of coming and leaving. I've gone no where. I was simply trying to avoid conflict for conflict's sake as I see no possibility of fruitful discussion here with you. In a truly fruitful discussion, there is give and take and at least some common ground. I don't see that here. I see selective responding, ignoring of points and questions, and, quite frankly, someone who is very attached to arguing and being right. Nothing more.

you may wish to understand talking to your self, assuming disbelief in something due to using tools to judge whether a perception or belief is true or nothing more than a perception or belief and saying you have experienced something but not saying what while criticizing others, is interesting.if you have a claim please state it and be open to questioning, instead of providing what at present amounts to nothing and excuses.

but also do understand I am not addressing you specifically unless I am actually quoting you!

You specifically ignored my wondering what your Gaelic quote meant, you did not respond to my URL's regarding meteorites and the Royal Academy nor my links to Randi or my suggestion that you check out the works of Dr. Rupert Sheldrake or Jaques Vallee. So why should I think you are serious in this discussion when you don't even do me the courtesy of specifically responding? Why should I assume that you are interested in anything but fostering YOUR POV?

the myth of the prize has been addressed by Randi and his organisation. and I have no reason to defend someone who has already defended themselves. it is not dificult to find his defence http://www.randi.org/site/ but he is only one debunker (and a easily recognisable one, hence his specific use).the main point hasn't changed, even with the "myth" or if another was used.I did actually say something which had direct relivance to your meteorite examplethere is the difference, a large body of anecdotal as-well as empirical evidence v's anecdotal alone with the addition of non-repeatable or flawed experiments or psudo-science in some cases.as you and others I have addressed have only so far been in regard to excesses for not demonstrating, I have not actually addressed any claim apart from what Raksha witnessed, and then it was to say it could still be examined and the cause shown.

I'm not trying to present evidence for a scientific inquiry. I simply stated that I have experienced things in my life which are not easily explained by the current scientific-materialist paradigm. I don't expect that to be "evidence". What I do expect, at least on a Buddhist forum is more open-mindedness. For example, I'd be a fool to expect such open-mindedness if I went and posted a similar thing on a physics forum. Why would I do that when what you say is absolutely true there? It would be equally foolish to discuss Jhana, enlightenment or a whole host of other things surrounding our practice on a physics forum, all of which are quite right to be discussed here. I don't see why that is even an issue.

you aren't presenting anything other than reasons why it should not be stated.there is nothing to be open minded about because there is nothing other than excusses. to be open minded you need to be able to ask what is going on, which has and does happen with Meditation!

You seem to have no problems with the idea of most any other Buddhist idea, but when the siddhis are discussed, you become very closed-mined. I honestly don't understand that. Jhana, the siddhis and indeed, full enlightenment are all self-reported phenomena, yet you seem to have no problems with the first and third (I'm assuming you have no problem with the third, correct me if I'm wrong?) but yet you totally deny the possibility of the second. NONE of which are appropriate to be discussed in a physics forum because none of them can be measured. Yet all are appropriate here.

I have no issue with things that can be looked at, discussed and shown to some extent... but to think I am going to accept Keck y Vooar excesses why not to say or talk about something and still be expected to accepted it is ridiculous, it is blind not open minded to do such.Keck y vooar means B'S' approximately, which is claiming closed mindedness when there is no reason to be inquisitive; as is accusing people of things for asking!

You actually have no idea what I accept! To think I would accept something without demonstrable evidence that could not be experienced repeated & verified is silly, yet apparently what you do expect.

Not at all. It is more akin to explaining to a blind man what colors are or to a person who's never experienced love what falling in love is like.

It is also somewhat disingenuous for you to say that Buddhist meditation can fall under the umbrella of science. Yes, science can measure changes in brainwaves during meditation and can report changes. But what "results" that you speak of can science study regarding Buddhism? Precious little that I can see. Of do you mean to tell me that science can determine whether or not, for instance, that Daniel Ingram is or is not an Arahant? You know it cannot. Science also has nothing to say about Jhana, the siddhis, or anything else.

Did not say at any point that Buddhist meditation falls under the umbrella of science, you are doing nothing but twisting what has been said!Buddhist meditation and certain teachings have proven to be helpful in mental health to some degree, but this does not mean that I have equated the two together by any stretch. and when I go onto say that through such corroborated results a reasonable projection that can lead people to believe that the end result might be true in some way, still does not say science proves Buddhism completely.-----seriously! deal with the points instead of trying to turn this on me all the time. if what you or anyone else has experienced is real it doesn't need hidden and can be questioned!

This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!Blog,-Some Suttas Translated,Ajahn Chah."Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."

This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!Blog,-Some Suttas Translated,Ajahn Chah."Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."

I think that reading the Anumana Sutta might be appropriate here... especially focus on the following parts:

Even if the bhikkhus concede to be advised, if they are unruly, with unruly talk, not submissive to advice, the co-associates in the holy should think not to advise them and not take them into their confidence.

Even if the bhikkhus do not ask for advice, are suave, have a gentle disposition, patient, and full of reverence when advised, the bhikkhus should think to advise them and take them into confidence.

Please take it easy... none of this has anything to do with the Dhamma practice, whether supernatural or otherwise. Sambojhanga had the right idea. I think that's what you should've focused on, Cittasanto, if you cared about it.

Last edited by beeblebrox on Sat Nov 10, 2012 5:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

beeblebrox wrote:I think that reading the Anumana Sutta might be appropriate here... especially focus on the following parts:

Even if the bhikkhus concede to be advised, if they are unruly, with unruly talk, not submissive to advice, the co-associates in the holy should think not to advise them and not take them into their confidence.

Even if the bhikkhus do not ask for advice, are suave, have a gentle disposition, patient, and full of reverence when advised, the bhikkhus should think to advise them and take them into confidence.

Please take it easy... none of this has anything to do with the Dhamma practice, whether supernatural or otherwise. Sambhojhanna had the right idea. I think that's what you should've focused on, Cittasanto, if you cared about it.

Friend Beeblebrox,

Thank you for your wise counsel in presenting us with a relevant Sutta quote.

I should've stuck to my original plan and not responded again. Alas, I am filled with defilements and they are showing.

I want to apologize to everyone, especially Cittasanto, for being argumentative. I truly do mean you know harm, friend Cittasanto, and have allowed my own attachments to Samsara to cloud my judgment in this matter. May we all strive for Nibbanna. Cittasanto, I offer you

Much Metta to all (and I PROMISE you all this is my last post on this matter)

Sabba rasam dhammaraso jinatiThe flavor of the dhamma exceeds all other flavors

This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!Blog,-Some Suttas Translated,Ajahn Chah."Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."

Cittasanto wrote:there is the difference, a large body of anecdotal as-well as empirical evidence v's anecdotal alone with the addition of non-repeatable or flawed experiments or psudo-science in some cases.

It's hardly a versus issue. It's more a supplemental issue, e.g. can an understanding of the purified mind's power allow for experiences above, not opposed to materialism.

Funny though, how your plea for the questioning of deeply held beliefs has so far made little progress in getting you to question your deeply held beliefs about the nature of evidence, experience, science, and reality.

Gain and loss, status and disgrace, censure and praise, pleasure and pain:these conditions among human beings are inconstant,impermanent, subject to change.

LonesomeYogurt wrote:Funny though, how your plea for the questioning of deeply held beliefs has so far made little progress in getting you to question your deeply held beliefs about the nature of evidence, experience, science, and reality.

and what deeply held belief is that precisely?you would first need to show I was not willing to accept any evidence, considering there was nothing shared apart from excesses and vague references to experiance something (but not what).p.s. if you are going to use Raksha as an example do pay attention to when I mentioned him & what led up to that. not to mention the context that was originally said (difference between metiorites and psi phenomenon)

This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!Blog,-Some Suttas Translated,Ajahn Chah."Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."

Thank you for your wise counsel in presenting us with a relevant Sutta quote.

I should've stuck to my original plan and not responded again. Alas, I am filled with defilements and they are showing.

I want to apologize to everyone, especially Cittasanto, for being argumentative. I truly do mean you know harm, friend Cittasanto, and have allowed my own attachments to Samsara to cloud my judgment in this matter. May we all strive for Nibbanna. Cittasanto, I offer you

Much Metta to all (and I PROMISE you all this is my last post on this matter)

When this concentration is thus developed, thus well developed by you, then wherever you go, you will go in comfort. Wherever you stand, you will stand in comfort. Wherever you sit, you will sit in comfort. Wherever you lie down, you will lie down in comfort.

Cittasanto wrote:you would first need to show I was not willing to accept any evidence, considering there was nothing shared apart from excesses and vague references to experiance something (but not what).